2016 Election Thread

biggentleben · May 19, 2016

That's what I get for missing staff meetings.

Just keep up on your TPS reports, and we'll look the other way. May even put in a good word with the Bobs!

Shane Wahl · May 19, 2016

I marvel at the political conversations around here. Anyway, part of the process of politics is compromise. Sanders proposing such things as "free college" and the $15 minimum wage, etc. is quite different that already moderate and compromised ideas of Hillary Clinton. Propose more sweeping changes and then compromise from that position. Seems simple.

Likely compromise is probably free community college tuition.

Anyway, Sanders is done. So let's see what happens. If Hillary Clinton cannot beat the guy saying the most vile, racist, sexist, ignorant, and idiotic things ever in the history of major candidates running for office in America, then maybe that is her problem.

Shane Wahl · May 19, 2016

I don't think we should have free college, and I'm a millennial.

I do, however, object to the system as it is today. Understandably, a higher education is pretty much a prerequisite to a good paying job, and though I haven't actually done my research on why colleges are so expensive (I guess this disqualifies me from conversing on the subject), I'm pretty sure they're taking advantage of this fact. They charge the maximum amount they know people are willing to pay - and I'm not saying I don't understand the business side of this scheme - but that price only goes up with increased competition.

Financial aid isn't a huge help, either. An example would be the college I used to dream of going to (I suppose this was largely triggered by peer pressure, etc. etc.). The tuition is over $40k a year. Even with scholarships based off of testing scores AND household income, I'd still be swamped in student loans. I guess that's what happens to most people, but my parents wouldn't cosign those loans because they didn't want to be stuck with paying them off if I died. That meant I either had to be reasonable or else wait to go to college until I was 24 or older.

Of course, going off our income (middle class) and the fact that I would only be the second person in college at the time, the minimal financial aid I would receive made complete sense. But our circumstance was a bit unusual as there are three kids after myself, all born within a few years, who need to go to college as well.

Obviously, the kids who go to these types of colleges are mostly upper class ... most people are willing to settle for less. That's why I'm starting out at a community college and then transferring to the U. They don't have an articulation agreement, however, and while I'm only taking courses that transfer into the U and making sure I get enough credits in every goal area, if I didn't do that (or if the U drops one or more of the courses over the next two years), I could end up taking three extra years to finish my BA. If that happens, although the UMN's tuition certainly isn't going to kill me, going to a community college will have been fruitless.

Less than twenty years ago, a friend of my parents' daughter got accepted to Oberlin on a merit based full ride. Today, if you want free tuition for a music degree, your only option is Curtis, and, well, I'm just not that caliber. Few people are. And the fact remains that community colleges don't have the highest standards, and I lucked out location-wise to get to finish my degree at Minnesota.

That said, based off our financial situation alone and completely ignoring my talent level, my only options are either starting out at a community college or else going to Curtis. That's why Bernie Sanders appeals to so many people. There is a problem; few people deny that. Bernie's not the solution by any stretch of the imagination, but you've got to admit attending college is simply becoming too challenging for middle class Americans.

I suppose if everyone did what I'm doing, it wouldn't be that bad - of course, tuition will continue to rise, and opting for starting out at a community college for a degree in music performance could provide major obstacles in the road going forward, but I'm okay with that. It's a risk I'm willing to take. Given the intense competition in the music world, I'm probably just being dumb, but then, whoever said the road to success was smooth!

Four things are at play in college cost:

1. Colleges and universities know about the sick financial aid programs out there that take advantage of young people just like the big banks took advantage of wannabe homeowners. Those programs will pay though, so they know the money is there.

2. Weird amounts spent to try to make campuses into "customer service" centers and to sell the idea of comfort in dorms, etc.

3. Administrators make a lot of money, and it isn't always clear what they do. And there numbers are growing rapidly. It is laughable, if it wasn't disgusting and a disservice to students. And most administrators are actually running education into the ground.

4. Old professors making boatloads of money. And they do this while often teaching 2-3 classes a year. A year. I teach 6 a semester! Research is important and the money should reflect that, but my word. There must be $1.5 million going to the 17 members of the Purdue Philosophy department, for instance. Anyway, if you are over 55 at a major university or college, you are probably making, on average, $150,000 a year.

Craig Arko · May 19, 2016

I marvel at the political conversations around here. Anyway, part of the process of politics is compromise. Sanders proposing such things as "free college" and the $15 minimum wage, etc. is quite different that already moderate and compromised ideas of Hillary Clinton. Propose more sweeping changes and then compromise from that position. Seems simple.

Likely compromise is probably free community college tuition.
Anyway, Sanders is done. So let's see what happens. If Hillary Clinton cannot beat the guy saying the most vile, racist, sexist, ignorant, and idiotic things ever in the history of major candidates running for office in America, then maybe that is her problem.

I'm pretty sure it would wind up being our problem, too.

TheLeviathan · May 19, 2016

I marvel at the political conversations around here. Anyway, part of the process of politics is compromise.

You're right....so what is Sanders' background on that?

It seems to me that he often criticizes Clinton for the results of doing exactly that. So I could buy this argument if the candidate himself seemed to realize this.

Squirrel · May 19, 2016

I marvel at the political conversations around here. Anyway, part of the process of politics is compromise. Sanders proposing such things as "free college" and the $15 minimum wage, etc. is quite different that already moderate and compromised ideas of Hillary Clinton. Propose more sweeping changes and then compromise from that position. Seems simple.

Likely compromise is probably free community college tuition.

Anyway, Sanders is done. So let's see what happens. If Hillary Clinton cannot beat the guy saying the most vile, racist, sexist, ignorant, and idiotic things ever in the history of major candidates running for office in America, then maybe that is her problem.

Yes, absolutely, compromise is how it works, which is why I had issues with Sanders. He is not a compromiser.

As for your last paragraph, if Hillary can't beat Trump, it's not her problem, it's ours.

formerly33 · May 19, 2016

Anyway, Sanders is done. So let's see what happens. If Hillary Clinton cannot beat the guy saying the most vile, racist, sexist, ignorant, and idiotic things ever in the history of major candidates running for office in America, then maybe that is her problem.

Um, yeah, Craig and ChiTown are right ... you can't blame Hillary if the majority of voters turn out to be vile, racist, sexist, ignorant, and idiotic. C'mon.

Shane Wahl · May 19, 2016

This *WAS* hilarious back then in March:

"I am running for president of the Minnesota Twins. We don't win anymore. I will make the Twins great again. Remember 1987? Remember 1991? We used to win. We don't win anymore. We make lousy deals. We make really lousy deals. I can make good trades. I've done deals with Pittsburgh. I've done deals with Denver. That deal they did with Denver- trading Cudyer- I was against that deal when it happened. That was a really, really bad deal. That was a horrible deal. I would never have done that deal. And we give up too many home runs. People make fun of the number of home runs we give up. It's really, really bad. So I'm gonna build a wall. I'm going to build a beautiful wall. It's going to be a huge wall, and Chicago and Kansas City players aren't going to hit balls over my wall. But our players, the Twins players, they'll hit the ball over this wall. Because I'm going to make good deals and this is going to be a beautiful wall. And no Toronto players will ever hit a ball over this wall. And when the Yankees and Red Sox come, well, the wall just got 10 feet higher. And we're gonna have Hispanics and Cubans- they love me, by the way- they really, really love me- I don't know why, but I was in Florida, and we have a lot of problems. A Lot Of Problems. I mean, we don't win anymore. But I'm gonna make the Twins great again. We don't win anymore. But I can do a very, very good job. Nobody can do the job like me. I'm the only one that can do this. And you know, I'll tell you this: Kansas City is doing very very bad things. They are using pitchers that we can't hit. It's so, so unfair. It's so unfair. I'm gonna do a deal with Kansas City. I do lots of deals with the Royals. I call them the Royals. I deal with them all the time. And you know what? They owe us runs. They owe us lots and lots of runs. They are killing us, when it comes to runs. I'm gonna do this deal where they don't get anymore runs. Cuz I do really, really good deals and Kansas City won't get any runs when I'm the Twins' president. And the fans aren't going to pay for the wall. No. I'm gonna make the Royals pay for the wall. Cuz they owe us runs. Trust me. We have a runs deficit. They owe us. They'll pay for the wall. And if any of the teams don't want to deal, we have to be able to walk. And if an umpire calls a Twin 'out'- NO! We're not out. We walk. We get on base. All the Twins get on base. Twins' fans are going to win, and win and win, and we're gonna be tired of winning. We're going to get sick of winning. I would say that we're going to be very, very full of winning. Very very full. Of winning. And, did I say I love the Hispanics? You've seen the polls. The Hispanics want to play in Minnesota. And they will love the wall. They'll really, really love the wall. And the Twins aren't going to pay for this beautiful wall. The Royals will pay for the wall. Oh yeah? Well, it just got ten feet taller."

But now that Trump actually clearly is running the team . . . not so much.

PseudoSABR · May 19, 2016

It seems to me that he often criticizes Clinton for the results of doing exactly that. So I could buy this argument if the candidate himself seemed to realize this.

The criticism on Clinton and other Dems is that they start negotiation with a compromise already in hand. That such politicians represent pre-arranged agreements satisfying the elite and special interests all in the name of practicality. Moreover, political compromise is nearly impossible when one of the parties is intractable; I certainly don't thinking cowing to Republicans in the name of getting something done is an asset.

The only way anything gets done by either Sanders or Clinton is with a windfall election that constitutes an unwavering mandate. It's understandable why many believe that Sanders is the better vehicle to make that happen.

I don't even really know what Clinton is running on exactly, other than not-as-bad-as Republicans and practicality (which sounds a lot like status quo governing to me). For all the criticism that Sanders gets about the lack of nuance in his ideas, Clinton deserves equal criticism for the ineffective messaging on her own policy goals. (I know I could find statements as such on her website etc., but that's hardly the point.) I mean what would a Clinton-mandate actually mandate?

Craig Arko · May 19, 2016

It's Uncle Wall 'O Text.

I had to check to make sure it wasn't Doc.

Mike Sixel · May 19, 2016

The criticism on Clinton and other Dems is that they start negotiation with a compromise already in hand. That such politicians represent pre-arranged agreements satisfying the elite and special interests all in the name of practicality. Moreover, political compromise is nearly impossible when one of the parties is intractable; I certainly don't thinking cowing to Republicans in the name of getting something done is an asset.

The only way anything gets done by either Sanders or Clinton is with a windfall election that constitutes an unwavering mandate. It's understandable why many believe that Sanders is the better vehicle to make that happen.

I don't even really know what Clinton is running on exactly, other than not-as-bad-as Republicans and practicality (which sounds a lot like status quo governing to me). For all the criticism that Sanders gets about the lack of nuance in his ideas, Clinton deserves equal criticism for the ineffective messaging on her own policy goals. (I know I could find statements as such on her website etc., but that's hardly the point.) I mean what would a Clinton-mandate actually mandate?

Clinton mandate:

take poll

determine what people say

come out saying you agree with that

don't actually do anything about it one way or the other so you can't take blame

That's how I see her. I could be wrong, of course. But I asked a hard core supporter of hers, very active politically, what exactly she stood for, and he couldn't answer.

Willihammer · May 19, 2016

If you don't think the country is horribly broken, wouldn't benefit from a war against an entire class of people (either brown people or the 1%), and are generally satisfied with the last 8 years, then status quo is a pretty easy choice.

TheLeviathan · May 19, 2016

The criticism on Clinton and other Dems is that they start negotiation with a compromise already in hand. That such politicians represent pre-arranged agreements satisfying the elite and special interests all in the name of practicality. Moreover, political compromise is nearly impossible when one of the parties is intractable; I certainly don't thinking cowing to Republicans in the name of getting something done is an asset.

Look, I hear both sides saying this and I don't buy it either way. You have two options to responding to this charge against Bernie:

1) Finding some way to demonstrate how he will both not compromise and advance legislation

or

2) Admit he's basically going to have the same thing happen as President as he did in Congress. Namely - nothing.

I don't find 1 very likely at all.

PseudoSABR · May 19, 2016

Look, I hear both sides saying this and I don't buy it either way. You have two options to responding to this charge against Bernie:

1) Finding some way to demonstrate how he will both not compromise and advance legislation

or

2) Admit he's basically going to have the same thing happen as President as he did in Congress. Namely - nothing.

I don't find 1 very likely at all.

A Bernie win might end up changing the make up Congress, especially if ends up being a windfall. That's the only way any real legislation would come to pass. Perhaps unlikely, but in the face of governance (or non-governance) as usual, it's an understandable choice for many who are not satisfied with the status quo.

TheLeviathan · May 19, 2016

A Bernie win might end up changing the make up Congress, especially if ends up being a windfall. That's the only way any real legislation would come to pass. Perhaps unlikely, but in the face of governance (or non-governance) as usual, it's an understandable choice for many who are not satisfied with the status quo.

It seems unlikely that he would both win and have sweeping changes in Congress. But even if I accept that it still turns out that you're arguing compromise is a non-option under Sanders.

PseudoSABR · May 19, 2016

It seems unlikely that he would both win and have sweeping changes in Congress. But even if I accept that it still turns out that you're arguing compromise is a non-option under Sanders.

Don't comprise the goal, comprise on how you get there. Sanders appeal is that he won't back off from specific principles; that's not to say he wouldn't negotiate on a host of specific policies and procedures that wouldn't compromise those principles or undermine such goals.

TheLeviathan · May 19, 2016

Don't comprise the goal, comprise on how you get there. Sanders appeal is that he won't back off from specific principles; that's not to say he wouldn't negotiate on a host of specific policies and procedures that wouldn't compromise those principles or undermine such goals.

Except he's often critical that what is passed is not close enough to the goal. Even if is moves policy in the right direction. Which suggests, to me, that negotiation is not a major part of his platform. His history in Congress would back that up.

Mike Sixel · May 19, 2016

Except he's often critical that what is passed is not close enough to the goal. Even if is moves policy in the right direction. Which suggests, to me, that negotiation is not a major part of his platform. His history in Congress would back that up.

What do you someone that is campaigning even more strongly on the change agenda than Obama to say? Yay, we compromised! We moved the needle so little it doesn't matter! Yay!

then he'll sound just like Clinton. He's not going to win any votes or change the conversation by sounding just like Clinton.....

Do you have any actual evidence of whether or not he's compromised in the Senate? Because that might tell you more than campaign speak.

TheLeviathan · May 19, 2016

What do you someone that is campaigning even more strongly on the change agenda than Obama to say? Yay, we compromised! We moved the needle so little it doesn't matter! Yay!

then he'll sound just like Clinton. He's not going to win any votes or change the conversation by sounding just like Clinton.....

Do you have any actual evidence of whether or not he's compromised in the Senate? Because that might tell you more than campaign speak.

Well, his Congressional record doesn't demonstrate a lot of legislative progress towards his goals. I don't deny that having lofty ambitions has good qualities. But politics is the art of getting things done.

What has Bernie gotten done that would make me believe he could do the same as President?

PseudoSABR · May 19, 2016

Except he's often critical that what is passed is not close enough to the goal. Even if is moves policy in the right direction. Which suggests, to me, that negotiation is not a major part of his platform. His history in Congress would back that up.

Bernie's criticism is valid in many, many cases. Consensus is not some great cure all.

There's a fairly large distinction between an unwillingness to negotiate on the goals/principals, and an unwillingness to negotiate altogether.

Negotiation and compromise aren't part of Sanders' platform, that much is true. There are some other candidates that seem to be touting their ability to negotiate and compromise...to what end? I'm not exactly sure.

TheLeviathan · May 19, 2016

Bernie's criticism is valid in many, many cases. Consensus is not some great cure all.

There's a fairly large distinction between an unwillingness to negotiate on the goals/principals, and an unwillingness to negotiate altogether.

Negotiation and compromise aren't part of Sanders' platform, that much is true. There are some other candidates that seem to be touting their ability to negotiate and compromise...to what end? I'm not exactly sure.

You're right that compromise can be a bad thing, but you don't advance your goals/principles just by espousing them. It takes more than that.

PseudoSABR · May 19, 2016

Do you have any actual evidence of whether or not he's compromised in the Senate? Because that might tell you more than campaign speak.

Bernie did work with the GOP on a veteran's bill, but it was defeated. I don't think Sanders would have survived as a politician without having a record of compromise and negotiation. He was a mayor for ten years; I doubt he let the government grind to a halt.

PseudoSABR · May 19, 2016

You're right that compromise can be a bad thing, but you don't advance your goals/principles just by espousing them. It takes more than that.

For sure.

TheLeviathan · May 19, 2016

Bernie did work with the GOP on a veteran's bill, but it was defeated. I don't think Sanders would have survived as a politician without having a record of compromise and negotiation. He was a mayor for ten years; I doubt he let the government grind to a halt.

I actually think that's where someone like Bernie can have more of an impact - state and local levels. Right now the national congress is just not in a place where much can get done. (By anyone really)

It takes someone who is a pretty good compromiser and I think that's one of Hillary's strengths. She's a bit old school like that. Even then I'm not sure she'll do much either. Nor would someone even like Mitt Romney.

Craig Arko · May 27, 2016

DaveW · May 27, 2016

Bernie hasn't been a compromising senator in the least, in fact he is the 2nd most partisan senator currently, the 3rd most partisan was Ted Cruz...

It's all pretty irrelevant anyways, Bernie has been officially eliminated for weeks now, instead of rallying his supporters behind the rest of the liberals/democrats he is continuing to take donations from the naive and people who many can't afford to be giving. He would be much better served getting his Bernie Bros to focus on key house and senate races.

TheLeviathan · May 27, 2016

Bernie is going to debate Trump? Really? Was I onion'd?

Squirrel · May 27, 2016

Bernie is going to debate Trump? Really? Was I onion'd?

Trump made some sort of comment on ... Jimmy Fallon? ... one of those nighttime talk shows ... that he'd like to debate Sanders. Sanders then tweeted something to the affect of 'Bring it on.' And they were supposedly going to try to do this, but I'm not sure it's really going to happen. I haven't followed it.

PseudoSABR · May 27, 2016

Bernie is going to debate Trump? Really? Was I onion'd?

Trump called it off today. Certainly would make for a spectacle.

Squirrel · May 27, 2016

Trump called it off today. Certainly would make for a spectacle.

Yeah ... just came back to edit my post as I saw the NYTimes had it, too.

Sign In

2016 Election Thread

Recommended Posts

Archived

Member Statistics

Prospect News & Highlights

Recent News

Notes & Rumors

Recent Blog Entries

Recent Status Updates